Paying my neighbors bills.

[Vision]

Care,

I think I can sort out this CRA thing between the two of you.

The CRA was well intended. The CRA itself is not to blame..BUT.....

...there is an important difference between the "law" and the "law applied". The CRA by itself was not a problem, how it was abused and misapplied by ACORN and Janet Reno was a problem.

On another point, Fannie and Freddie were making the same mistakes some of the banks did. They knew behind every loan, good or bad, was a house increasing in value, so if the people didn't pay to heck with it, keep their money and resell the now even more valuable house for even more money, so in that regard yes Fannie and Freddie were to blame, and the OFHEO regulator said so year after year in its testimony in from of the banking committee's and Greenspan testified to the same things in front of those committee's.

Fannie and Freddie were ran mostly by Democratic operatives, who paid themselves massive multi million dollar salaries, because each time they bought a bad loan, they claimed that had an asset that was increasing in value every day (the house) ......and then it all crashed.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I am 20 years old. Just starting my life out. I live within my means, and i don't purchase things ie. cars, HOUSES, boats, etc. etc. that I can't afford.

Does this mean you'll not claim the EITC if you become eligible for it?

 

[Care4all]

Care,

I think I can sort out this CRA thing between the two of you.

The CRA was well intended. The CRA itself is not to blame..BUT.....

...there is an important difference between the "law" and the "law applied". The CRA by itself was not a problem, how it was abused and misapplied by ACORN and Janet Reno was a problem.

On another point, Fannie and Freddie were making the same mistakes some of the banks did. They knew behind every loan, good or bad, was a house increasing in value, so if the people didn't pay to heck with it, keep their money and resell the now even more valuable house for even more money, so in that regard yes Fannie and Freddie were to blame, and the OFHEO regulator said so year after year in its testimony in from of the banking committee's and Greenspan testified to the same things in front of those committee's.

Fannie and Freddie were ran mostly by Democratic operatives, who paid themselves massive multi million dollar salaries, because each time they bought a bad loan, they claimed that had an asset that was increasing in value every day (the house) ......and then it all crashed.

Sorry it took so long to answer, I am in the middle of preparing and cooking dinner....

Fannie and freddie are privately owned banks and the president of these banks are appointed by the president of the united states, the head of both fannie and freddie were appointed by president Bush....

that being said, they got as greedy as the other banks out there and started buying some of the mortgage back securities of these other banks for their own investments...the SHAREHOLDERS/INVESTORS of Fannie and Freddie encourage fannie and freddie management to buy more of these MBS's because they were highly profitable.

But these MBS'S had been out there being packaged and sold by NON GSE Banks for 5 years or longer....before Freddie started to buy some of them....doesn't the timeline of this mean anything? I think it should and it is a big clue!

And the reasons the banks did not need Fannie and Freddie to underwrite them is because they packaged them in to these mbs's and were able to sell off these mbs's with the triple AAA rating they got the Rating agencies to give them....which allowed all the big pension funds out there to buy them and all the foreign small town governments out there to buy them, because according to the rating's agency, they were 100% safe investments, triple AAA investments....

So the Banks did not need fannie and freddie to underwrite them and F/F did not underwrite them ....these other banks businesses were booming without fannie and freddie because they were buying up all of these fly by night mortgages from anyone and everyone...without any business common sense or good business practice, with their nice little scam being in cahoots with the ratings agency because after all they were the ones PAYING the ratings agency..., and with them being struck stupid with greed, they presumed what goes up will NEVER COME DOWN, when never in our history has this ever been the case with housing.

Yes, Fannie and freddie shareholders were jealous of all the mortgages these other banks were funding and the boocoos of money they were making off these mortgage backed securities and they talked their management in to buying in to them.....which was a very unwise decision and one made only from greed.

But they were financially on shaky ground with scandals and other financial things before they got in on the MBS game....

And none of this was because of the Community Reinvestment Act....these bozo's that the banks were buying up these crappy mortgages from did not care who they got loans for or where they lived or anything at all about any of these people in the very end, and the banks kept buying them from these mortgage brokers anyway...stupid, stupid, stupid.

The only reason why is what you mentioned, they thought they could NOT lose, if they defaulted they would resell the homes at the higher price or they knew they would not be holding the debt because they were going to sell it off to some unsuspecting pension fund that only understood the mbs as to be a safe, AAA RATED PRODUCT.

Greed ruled all in this mess, from the people buying homes they could not afford to the new fly by night mortgage firms that became billion dollar money makers, to the banks that turned a blind eye to good business bank practice for the huge increases they were having to the Rating's agencies that were being paid by the banks big money...and so many more whose hands were in it....

We probably don't even know the tip of the iceberg on this....nothing will surprise me any more.... shakes head.

These people running these banks and mortgage brokers...these ''money changers'', were not from one political party or another, they were just greedy people blinded by the love of money...and i certainly don't rule fannie and freddie out as being one of the greedy ones making some bad decisions...

care

 

[DiveCon]

so, you are saying Bush appointed democrats to those positions?

 

[elvis]

so, you are saying Bush appointed democrats to those positions?

Rahm Emanuel, anyone?

ob's chief of staff

 

[Peejay]

Care4all makes the best argument, backed by the facts. It isn't a partisan issue, as much as the folks here love nothing better than making everything a partisan issue. It is / was about unbridled greed fed by what ? USUSRY. Easy money. Money for nothing. And within a very short time frame we opened up for everyone to get some of that easy usury money. Thing is, there is only so much that the system can bear. When you get every Tom and Dick in the country expecting returns you reach the point where there are more people expecting usury money than people that can pay it. You can only use predatory lending so long as there are people to prey on. Just like the polar bears starve when the seals are gone, the usurers starve when the poor folks run out of work. Nobady left to prey on and the cash flow dries up.

But hey, I've brought this subject up a handful of times and nobody wants to touch it. Too many people have their own lines out hoping to cash in a little usury money of their own. Good luck !

 

[DiveCon]

Care4all makes the best argument, backed by the facts. It isn't a partisan issue, as much as the folks here love nothing better than making everything a partisan issue. It is / was about unbridled greed fed by what ? USUSRY. Easy money. Money for nothing. And within a very short time frame we opened up for everyone to get some of that easy usury money. Thing is, there is only so much that the system can bear. When you get every Tom and Dick in the country expecting returns you reach the point where there are more people expecting usury money than people that can pay it. You can only use predatory lending so long as there are people to prey on. Just like the polar bears starve when the seals are gone, the usurers starve when the poor folks run out of work. Nobady left to prey on and the cash flow dries up.

But hey, I've brought this subject up a handful of times and nobody wants to touch it. Too many people have their own lines out hoping to cash in a little usury money of their own. Good luck !

sorry, but to me it looks like care is the one trying to make it partisan
and many of the rest of us are blaming both party's

 

[Care4all]

so, you are saying Bush appointed democrats to those positions?

oh no, just saying that the President of the United States, according to legislation/regulation has the duty to appoint the presidents of each.

The President can keep on, Presidents of these banks or he replaces them was my understanding, that's all I know about it....

Other positions at fannie and freddie that our gvt has a say in, which are very few of the other jobs, i'm certain is done on a "who you know" basis...no doubt.

But this still is not a reason to blame the Community reinvestment act, or poor people for all our woes, the CRA has been a good thing for America....even with the changes in the Clinton administration and the changes under president Bush 2's administration...it has taken many modifications over the years from all the presidents we have had, even Bush 1....some are good, some not so good....minor things can be corrected dive...

care

 

[DiveCon]

so, you are saying Bush appointed democrats to those positions?

oh no, just saying that the President of the United States, according to legislation/regulation has the duty to appoint the presidents of each.

The President can keep on, Presidents of these banks or he replaces them was my understanding, that's all I know about it....

Other positions at fannie and freddie that our gvt has a say in, which are very few of the other jobs, i'm certain is done on a "who you know" basis...no doubt.

But this still is not a reason to blame the Community reinvestment act, or poor people for all our woes, the CRA has been a good thing for America....even with the changes in the Clinton administration and the changes under president Bush 2's administration...it has taken many modifications over the years from all the presidents we have had, even Bush 1....some are good, some not so good....minor things can be corrected dive...

care

the CRA was PART of the problem
also part of the problem was people falling for the equity line loans and reverse mortgages

there is no such thing as free money

 

[Peejay]

so, you are saying Bush appointed democrats to those positions?

oh no, just saying that the President of the United States, according to legislation/regulation has the duty to appoint the presidents of each.

The President can keep on, Presidents of these banks or he replaces them was my understanding, that's all I know about it....

Other positions at fannie and freddie that our gvt has a say in, which are very few of the other jobs, i'm certain is done on a "who you know" basis...no doubt.

But this still is not a reason to blame the Community reinvestment act, or poor people for all our woes, the CRA has been a good thing for America....even with the changes in the Clinton administration and the changes under president Bush 2's administration...it has taken many modifications over the years from all the presidents we have had, even Bush 1....some are good, some not so good....minor things can be corrected dive...

care

the CRA was PART of the problem
also part of the problem was people falling for the equity line loans and reverse mortgages

there is no such thing as free money

Absolutely there is free money. When a bank loans out 30 times the amount of money it actually has and then collects interest on that money they never had to begin with, what do you call that ? Value and deposits were converted to free interest dollars. No one earned a stinking dime of it. The game is pretty much over for now but, boy oh boy, was there a ton of free money while it lasted.

 

[DiveCon]

oh no, just saying that the President of the United States, according to legislation/regulation has the duty to appoint the presidents of each.

The President can keep on, Presidents of these banks or he replaces them was my understanding, that's all I know about it....

Other positions at fannie and freddie that our gvt has a say in, which are very few of the other jobs, i'm certain is done on a "who you know" basis...no doubt.

But this still is not a reason to blame the Community reinvestment act, or poor people for all our woes, the CRA has been a good thing for America....even with the changes in the Clinton administration and the changes under president Bush 2's administration...it has taken many modifications over the years from all the presidents we have had, even Bush 1....some are good, some not so good....minor things can be corrected dive...

care

the CRA was PART of the problem
also part of the problem was people falling for the equity line loans and reverse mortgages

there is no such thing as free money

Absolutely there is free money. When a bank loans out 30 times the amount of money it actually has and then collects interest on that money they never had to begin with, what do you call that ? Value and deposits were converted to free interest dollars. No one earned a stinking dime of it. The game is pretty much over for now but, boy oh boy, was there a ton of free money while it lasted.

uh, what?
sorry, that made ZERO sense
there is no such thing as free money

 

[Care4all]

so, you are saying Bush appointed democrats to those positions?

oh no, just saying that the President of the United States, according to legislation/regulation has the duty to appoint the presidents of each.

The President can keep on, Presidents of these banks or he replaces them was my understanding, that's all I know about it....

Other positions at fannie and freddie that our gvt has a say in, which are very few of the other jobs, i'm certain is done on a "who you know" basis...no doubt.

But this still is not a reason to blame the Community reinvestment act, or poor people for all our woes, the CRA has been a good thing for America....even with the changes in the Clinton administration and the changes under president Bush 2's administration...it has taken many modifications over the years from all the presidents we have had, even Bush 1....some are good, some not so good....minor things can be corrected dive...

care

the CRA was PART of the problem
also part of the problem was people falling for the equity line loans and reverse mortgages

there is no such thing as free money

How? Where was the CRA's involvement and when did this involvement come in to play and with whom did it come in to play with, that had their hands in this mess?

people from all aspects of this crisis with their hands in this mess were interviewed on this program last night...

the people taking out some of these loans
the people who were foreclosed on
the people who refinanced
the guys opening up these shotty mortgage peddling firms...
the bank guys that decided to go ahead and under write the loans from these shotty firms...
the guy who made a billion bucks by hedging the market short, betting on the housing market to fall
the insurance guy who took the bet
the guys from the rating agency on why they rated these risky mbs's as AAA rating.
the fed who kept interest rates low and also encouraged it

It's a spider web of people working in unison, yet some how without even knowing it, to scam alot of people out of a lot of money, until the House of Cards came tumbling down on them and one guy alone who went to many of these mega banks and even the ratings agency, showing them and warning them it was all going to fall, but the banks and the others refused to listen to his warning no matter how hard he tried, so he then began betting that the house of cards would fall because they did not even care a bit about his warnings...so then hedged a bet, that it would fall...and it did....which made him 1 billion...

please see the Documentary called, House of Cards that was shown on cnbc last night....I am certain it will be shown again...

trying to make this as though the CRA was a major part in this is not what I believe to be true now...a tiny part, as far as i have found out...but not that much more...this crisis is so way, way, way bigger with much bigger players that couldn't give 2 hoots about a community reinvestment act....who could be trying to NOW cover their tracts and say "they made me do" and try to falsely use the CRA as a scape goat....but really, all the ones on the documentary yesterday, didn't even mention the CRA as being a catalyst or president bush's initiative to put more people in to homes programs....these are things other people are using but these guys that were hands on, didn't even mention either as being a reason of why they made the stupid decisions they did...

I thought the same as you 6 months ago Dive....but NOT any more....so, i respectfully disagree....



Care

 

[DiveCon]

oh no, just saying that the President of the United States, according to legislation/regulation has the duty to appoint the presidents of each.

The President can keep on, Presidents of these banks or he replaces them was my understanding, that's all I know about it....

Other positions at fannie and freddie that our gvt has a say in, which are very few of the other jobs, i'm certain is done on a "who you know" basis...no doubt.

But this still is not a reason to blame the Community reinvestment act, or poor people for all our woes, the CRA has been a good thing for America....even with the changes in the Clinton administration and the changes under president Bush 2's administration...it has taken many modifications over the years from all the presidents we have had, even Bush 1....some are good, some not so good....minor things can be corrected dive...

care

the CRA was PART of the problem
also part of the problem was people falling for the equity line loans and reverse mortgages

there is no such thing as free money

How? Where was the CRA's involvement and when did this involvement come in to play and with whom did it come in to play with, that had their hands in this mess?

people from all aspects of this crisis with their hands in this mess were interviewed on this program last night...

the people taking out some of these loans
the people who were foreclosed on
the people who refinanced
the guys opening up these shotty mortgage peddling firms...
the bank guys that decided to go ahead and under write the loans from these shotty firms...
the guy who made a billion bucks by hedging the market short, betting on the housing market to fall
the insurance guy who took the bet
the guys from the rating agency on why they rated these risky mbs's as AAA rating.
the fed who kept interest rates low and also encouraged it

It's a spider web of people working in unison, yet some how without even knowing it, to scam alot of people out of a lot of money, until the House of Cards came tumbling down on them and one guy alone who went to many of these mega banks and even the ratings agency, showing them and warning them it was all going to fall, but the banks and the others refused to listen to his warning no matter how hard he tried, so he then began betting that the house of cards would fall because they did not even care a bit about his warnings...so then hedged a bet, that it would fall...and it did....which made him 1 billion...

please see the Documentary called, House of Cards that was shown on cnbc last night....I am certain it will be shown again...

trying to make this as though the CRA was a major part in this is not what I believe to be true now...a tiny part, as far as i have found out...but not that much more...this crisis is so way, way, way bigger with much bigger players that couldn't give 2 hoots about a community reinvestment act....who could be trying to NOW cover their tracts and say "they made me do" and try to falsely use the CRA as a scape goat....but really, all the ones on the documentary yesterday, didn't even mention the CRA as being a catalyst or president bush's initiative to put more people in to homes programs....these are things other people are using but these guys that were hands on, didn't even mention either as being a reason of why they made the stupid decisions they did...

I thought the same as you 6 months ago Dive....but NOT any more....so, i respectfully disagree....



Care

i dont bother with any NBC show
they are all so partisan i dont believe anything on them

 

[DiveCon]

hell, most of TV is like that

 

[Peejay]

uh, what?
sorry, that made ZERO sense
there is no such thing as free money

We begin with making a deposit of S10,000 by customers at SunTrust Bank. By keeping 10 percent of the deposit (10,000 x 0.10) $1,000 as its required reserve, it lends the rest—its excess reserve of $9,000 to various borrowers. In the second round, we assume that $9,000 loaned by SunTrust and spent by borrowers get deposited at Wachovia Bank. Now Wachovia Bank after keeping the required reserve of ($9,000 x 0.10) $900 lends the rest. In the third round we assume that ($9,000 - $900) $8,100 of excess reserve is loaned out by Wachovia bank and returns as deposits at Bank of America which has to keep only ($8,100 x 0.10) $810 as a reserve and lends the rest ($8,100 - $810) $7,290 to other borrowers. This process we assume continues until no money is left to be deposited or loaned.

We summarize the above process as below:



Round One

SunTrust Bank

The deposit received = $10,000

Required reserve of 10% 1,000

Excess reserve = 9,000

Money loaned and “created by SunTrust Bank = $9,000

Round Two



Wachovia Bank

The deposit received = $ 9,000

Required reserve of 10% 900

Excess reserve = 8,100



Money loaned and “created by Wachovia Bank = $8,100

Round Three

Bank of America

The deposit received = $ 8,100

Required reserve of 10% 810

Excess reserve = 7,290

Money loaned and “created by Bank of America = $7,290



Total money “created” by the above banks = $24,390

Should we continue with the above process of

receiving deposits and lending their excess

reserves by other banks all over the nation, they

will be able to “create” additional money: = 65,610

Total money the entire banking system

of the U.S. would be able to create = $90,000



I don't what you call this process of making $90,000 out of $10,000, not to mention the interest that is taken when the banks loan this money. Looks like free money to me.

 

[DiveCon]

uh, what?
sorry, that made ZERO sense
there is no such thing as free money

We begin with making a deposit of S10,000 by customers at SunTrust Bank. By keeping 10 percent of the deposit (10,000 x 0.10) $1,000 as its required reserve, it lends the rest—its excess reserve of $9,000 to various borrowers. In the second round, we assume that $9,000 loaned by SunTrust and spent by borrowers get deposited at Wachovia Bank. Now Wachovia Bank after keeping the required reserve of ($9,000 x 0.10) $900 lends the rest. In the third round we assume that ($9,000 - $900) $8,100 of excess reserve is loaned out by Wachovia bank and returns as deposits at Bank of America which has to keep only ($8,100 x 0.10) $810 as a reserve and lends the rest ($8,100 - $810) $7,290 to other borrowers. This process we assume continues until no money is left to be deposited or loaned.

We summarize the above process as below:



Round One

SunTrust Bank

The deposit received = $10,000

Required reserve of 10% 1,000

Excess reserve = 9,000

Money loaned and “created by SunTrust Bank = $9,000

Round Two



Wachovia Bank

The deposit received = $ 9,000

Required reserve of 10% 900

Excess reserve = 8,100



Money loaned and “created by Wachovia Bank = $8,100

Round Three

Bank of America

The deposit received = $ 8,100

Required reserve of 10% 810

Excess reserve = 7,290

Money loaned and “created by Bank of America = $7,290



Total money “created” by the above banks = $24,390

Should we continue with the above process of

receiving deposits and lending their excess

reserves by other banks all over the nation, they

will be able to “create” additional money: = 65,610

Total money the entire banking system

of the U.S. would be able to create = $90,000



I don't what you call this process of making $90,000 out of $10,000, not to mention the interest that is taken when the banks loan this money. Looks like free money to me.

again, none of that is free money
they loaned out that money, it is not "created" as you claim
it still belongs to those that deposited it

 

[Peejay]

uh, what?
sorry, that made ZERO sense
there is no such thing as free money

We begin with making a deposit of S10,000 by customers at SunTrust Bank. By keeping 10 percent of the deposit (10,000 x 0.10) $1,000 as its required reserve, it lends the rest—its excess reserve of $9,000 to various borrowers. In the second round, we assume that $9,000 loaned by SunTrust and spent by borrowers get deposited at Wachovia Bank. Now Wachovia Bank after keeping the required reserve of ($9,000 x 0.10) $900 lends the rest. In the third round we assume that ($9,000 - $900) $8,100 of excess reserve is loaned out by Wachovia bank and returns as deposits at Bank of America which has to keep only ($8,100 x 0.10) $810 as a reserve and lends the rest ($8,100 - $810) $7,290 to other borrowers. This process we assume continues until no money is left to be deposited or loaned.

We summarize the above process as below:



Round One

SunTrust Bank

The deposit received = $10,000

Required reserve of 10% 1,000

Excess reserve = 9,000

Money loaned and “created by SunTrust Bank = $9,000

Round Two



Wachovia Bank

The deposit received = $ 9,000

Required reserve of 10% 900

Excess reserve = 8,100



Money loaned and “created by Wachovia Bank = $8,100

Round Three

Bank of America

The deposit received = $ 8,100

Required reserve of 10% 810

Excess reserve = 7,290

Money loaned and “created by Bank of America = $7,290



Total money “created” by the above banks = $24,390

Should we continue with the above process of

receiving deposits and lending their excess

reserves by other banks all over the nation, they

will be able to “create” additional money: = 65,610

Total money the entire banking system

of the U.S. would be able to create = $90,000



I don't what you call this process of making $90,000 out of $10,000, not to mention the interest that is taken when the banks loan this money. Looks like free money to me.

again, none of that is free money
they loaned out that money, it is not "created" as you claim
it still belongs to those that deposited it

Great then. I want to deposit $10,000 into the bank of Divecon. I'll be waiting for my "non free" $90,000 that you claim belongs to me.

 

[DiveCon]

We begin with making a deposit of S10,000 by customers at SunTrust Bank. By keeping 10 percent of the deposit (10,000 x 0.10) $1,000 as its required reserve, it lends the rest—its excess reserve of $9,000 to various borrowers. In the second round, we assume that $9,000 loaned by SunTrust and spent by borrowers get deposited at Wachovia Bank. Now Wachovia Bank after keeping the required reserve of ($9,000 x 0.10) $900 lends the rest. In the third round we assume that ($9,000 - $900) $8,100 of excess reserve is loaned out by Wachovia bank and returns as deposits at Bank of America which has to keep only ($8,100 x 0.10) $810 as a reserve and lends the rest ($8,100 - $810) $7,290 to other borrowers. This process we assume continues until no money is left to be deposited or loaned.

We summarize the above process as below:



Round One

SunTrust Bank

The deposit received = $10,000

Required reserve of 10% 1,000

Excess reserve = 9,000

Money loaned and “created by SunTrust Bank = $9,000

Round Two



Wachovia Bank

The deposit received = $ 9,000

Required reserve of 10% 900

Excess reserve = 8,100



Money loaned and “created by Wachovia Bank = $8,100

Round Three

Bank of America

The deposit received = $ 8,100

Required reserve of 10% 810

Excess reserve = 7,290

Money loaned and “created by Bank of America = $7,290



Total money “created” by the above banks = $24,390

Should we continue with the above process of

receiving deposits and lending their excess

reserves by other banks all over the nation, they

will be able to “create” additional money: = 65,610

Total money the entire banking system

of the U.S. would be able to create = $90,000



I don't what you call this process of making $90,000 out of $10,000, not to mention the interest that is taken when the banks loan this money. Looks like free money to me.

again, none of that is free money
they loaned out that money, it is not "created" as you claim
it still belongs to those that deposited it

Great then. I want to deposit $10,000 into the bank of Divecon. I'll be waiting for my "non free" $90,000 that you claim belongs to me.

you are NUTZ
if you deposit $10,000 you only have $10,000

 

[Peejay]

again, none of that is free money
they loaned out that money, it is not "created" as you claim
it still belongs to those that deposited it

Great then. I want to deposit $10,000 into the bank of Divecon. I'll be waiting for my "non free" $90,000 that you claim belongs to me.

you are NUTZ
if you deposit $10,000 you only have $10,000

So then, when this $90,000 is repaid from loans made possible by my $10,000, who gets the extra $80,000 plus interest ?

 

[DiveCon]

Great then. I want to deposit $10,000 into the bank of Divecon. I'll be waiting for my "non free" $90,000 that you claim belongs to me.

you are NUTZ
if you deposit $10,000 you only have $10,000

So then, when this $90,000 is repaid from loans made possible by my $10,000, who gets the extra $80,000 plus interest ?

where the fuck are you getting $80,000 from
the bank can loan out 90% of their deposits(according to you) so if 9 people deposit $10,000 then they have $90,000 in assests they can loan
it still belongs to those 9 people that deposited the money
you are a fucking moron